Kudos to President Obama

You must be talking about the Mushroom cloud. Or the fake WMD's. Or the Yellow cake.

 

Did you miss the admin's screw-up when they used the photos of dead Iraqis (victims of saddam's gas attacks) to make their case instead of photos of dead Syrians? Like I said, the delivery is different but the justifications being tossed about are the exact same.

 

YOU supported the Iraqi war and you still do. So you feel that we were mislead by some supposed pictures in this situation, you must also feel that Iraq was a scam. Are you finally ready to admit it?

 

So now the Boner is on board with an attack.

View attachment 1964

 

You mean you agree with this Boehner?

 

So, Obama agrees with Boehner. What's your point?

 

Underestimating an opponent is a common trait among the ignorant.

An example of that is Iraq. Yeah, we blasted our way through with idiotic "shock and awe" tactics, and we claimed we won...like idiots. In the end we left with our tails between our legs, and are doing the same in Afghanistan.

You don't win in a few hours. You don't win in a few days. Why? Because you ignore the guerrilla-aspect of a continuing War, the hit-and-run tactical strikes on supplies and patrols. Over time, even the most ignorant among you should understand the concept that a War isn't "won" in a few hours. A battle, or tactical engagement, maybe...but never a War.

If we decide to attack Syria, we will go after their radar and anti-air missile defenses, and will take them out rather quickly. The cost to our aircraft and personnel will likely be half a dozen or so shot down. After that, we would continue to receive fire from small and mediums-sized arms, as well as rocket-propelled grenades and mobile rocket-launching systems as we attempt to take out other strategic locations. Weeks into the campaign you can expect our military personnel losses to slow down, but the total would rise steadily over the months of a sustained campaign. That's if we don't put "boots on the ground".

A flea? Only if you're ignorant of guerrilla-style combat in a War-zone. You shouldn't be, it's ongoing in Iraq and Afghanistan, even if we are no longer the main target of those attacks.

In Syria, we will then be supplying the rebels with small and medium arms. Those will be targets. And you can expect more chemical weapons to be used, a lot more, should we begin an attack. The targets will be wherever the Syrian forces are not, which is populated cities and towns scattered throughout Syria.

Bottom line: If we want to attack Syria, the least we could do is send over a chit-load of body-bags for all the civilians that are going to die as a result.

IMO

 

Thanks for your input, General IQLessThan1. Your years at West Point have finally paid off.

 

Oh, I don't think it changes MY opinion one bit. I still disagree with both of them. My point is...., is YOUR position changing now that the only thing the GOP has even close to leadership is now on board? Hum?

 

I think you paint a best case scenario here. The likely outcome in my opinion is a wider regional conflict. Do you believe for one moment that Iran, Russia, even China won't be involved somehow? Then there are the real players to consider, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and every other fringe group in the area. I like your scenario a lot more.

 

Now Cantor is on board.

More and more Republicans are falling in line and that only convinces me that I have been right about this issue all along. What do we possibly have to gain by taking out Assad? Another Islamic state in the region. Great!

 

This is very telling. I hope everyone watches it on the History channel tonight.

<iframe src="http://embed.live.huffingtonpost.com/HPLEmbedPlayer/?segmentId=521bcbeafe344444840009ab" width="480" height="270" frameBorder="0" scrollable="no"></iframe>

 

Actually, the case BO makes for action in Syria only reinforces the fact that Bush made the right decision based on the information presented at the time. I don't believe we should be the world's policeman but, at the same time, how can we sit by & watch innocent people being gassed? I say we should just let the Syrians fight their own civil war but do whatever we can to prevent the mass murder of civilians.

 

Agreed...(Except Bush was scammed by the war hawks he surrounded himself with)

 

I didn't ask if it changed your opinion; you and I still agree that we should stay out of Syria. Unfortunately, Obama doesn't think so and neither does Boehner. You love Obama no matter what he does.

You once said that Lincoln and Obama would go down in history as the two greatest presidents. It doesn't matter to you whether or not Obama slaughters Libyans by the thousands nor if he slaughters Syrians either. You don't care about Obama's pretense of invading Syria for "humanitarian" or "punitive" reasons for, as you've previously said, we only care about the Middle East because of oil. If that's really the true reason we're going to invade Syria it should make you sick to your stomach that Obama would kill people for oil. It should make you so sick, in fact, that you would denounce Obama. But, you won't because you're just a liberal, partisan hack.

 

...only if the Clinton's & every single international & domestic intelligence agency are included in the "war hawks" category

 

I didn't get into that, because I was countering the idea that Syria can't defend itself, that it is a "flea".

I didn't get into Al Qaeda being there, for a number of reasons, but yes, they would take advantage of our attacking the Syrian forces, and will be a player there for years to come.

Iran, Russia, even China will be upset over any attack on Syria, and the consequences are complex. On the plus-side, an attack would strengthen our bond with the Arab nations.

It's also true that the rebels are not happy with us, as we've left them to themselves for years. They'd be happier with us if we help them, of course, but don't expect them to be friendly later on. They'll want more arms, bigger weapons, tanks, aircraft, etc....should they succeed in toppling the government there.

Then there is the financial aid that will be necessary; food and shelter, not just for those within Syria, but refugees outside the border, some of which will return and need assistance. Expect the bill to be huge.

It's a cluster-@#$% of a situation, much like Iraq. There, we strengthened Iran, by taking out Saddam, who was opposing them. Here, we'd be strengthening their point that we are attacking Islam...again.

On the other hand, Iran's influence in the region should diminish a bit, as Syria is a strong ally of theirs. But, who's to say they that is correct? What if the new government continues it's friendship with Iran? Or Russia? Or China?...rather than the U.S.

The point being: It's not as simple as people think it is, it's a complex situation. Even here at home it's going to cost us big-time. The cost of the strikes and ensuing assistance is going to rile the hell out of so-called "conservatives", tea-party-girls and libertarians, and the repercussions of that may be severe.

Then again: @#$% the so-called "conservatives", tea-party-girls and libertarians...they're loons anyway.

 

Just an FYI: Syria's weapons have improved since 1982. Quoting a battle from over thirty years ago, and thinking it'll be the same outcome today, is ignorant or idiotic, take your pick.

 

That is what I thought when I read his post. That and, IS HE SERIOUS??

 

Nobody has said dick about who and what type of government is going to step in after Assad is ousted. If they leave it to a vote, the country is 90 percent Muslim. That election is a forgone conclusion. If they install some guy, he'll end up being more corrupt than Assad. There is only one solution here. Dig up Syria and put the entire country into rusty buckets and stack them on a garbage barge and float out to the deepest part of the ocean and dump them overboard. after you're done, rope off the hole and fill with Styrofoam. It's sad when this is the only viable solution.